Thomas’ and Jones’ articles really stood out to me since, lately, I’ve been interested in open source software as a public technology. Thomas asserts that “virus programmers have a long history of sharing code and ideas, a process which is similar to the early computer programmers of the 1960s and 1970s. What these hackers used to refer to as ‘bumming code’ is a standard for development in the virus community” (p. 266). In addition, Jones begins his article with a brief explanation of Wikipedia: “Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, regardless of that person’s background or expertise, and the wiki software that powers the site instantly publishes those edits to the Web” (p. 262).
These articles reminded me of something I read in Wired magazine a while back. The article looked at Google’s new Internet browser, Chrome. In the article, Ben Goodger, part of the Chrome development team, “ talks about the benefits of making Chrome an open source product — the code will be publicly released and a community will emerge to determine the browser's evolution..."It'll enable people to do things we haven't thought of. And it'll generate trust that we're not doing something evil” (http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-10/mf_chrome?currentPage=4). While I'm sure we could make a long list of the pros and cons of Google, this is an interesting development in their software.
Likewise, Mozilla has been producing open source software for awhile. Their purpose for doing so is expressed on their web site: “The common thread that runs throughout Mozilla is our belief that, as the most significant social and technological development of our time, the Internet is a public resource that must remain open and accessible to all. With this in mind, our efforts are ultimately driven by our mission of encouraging choice, innovation and opportunity online” (http://www.mozilla.org/about/).
As a combination of Jones’ and Thomas’ research, it would be interesting to look at the writing practices of open source software “writers” (although this has probably been done...). As the virus-writers created code to subvert the commercialization of computer technology, it seems that open source code writers work in similar ways. Rather than creating a piece of technology to copyright and sell, groups like Mozilla create software with the inherent purpose of encouraging its evolution through a community of like-minded people.
It’s interesting to think about what rights are allowed to the end user of various software. It’s almost assumed that a user of Mozilla software or other open source technology might consider changing the code to their liking. When you use a licensed software, say from Apple, Microsoft, or Adobe, you can pay loads of money but only have the ability to use the software within the constraints designated by the programmers. While I agree that, for example, Adobe Photoshop is built on a ridiculously complicated code structure, and it might be worth some (all?) of the cost to buy it, I wonder how it might be changed if it were open source? The end users, probably web and print designers and photographers, know what they are comfortable with and what they’d like to change.
I’ve been using licensed software for so long that it’s difficult for me to comprehend changing the way I use my computer. First of all, I can’t write code. I understand the bare basics of how HTML works, but beyond that, I’d need some training. That’s not the obstacle for me; once I learned how to write code or change programs, I’d like to tweak the ones I already have to do things I want them to do. Unfortunately, licensed products don’t allow the end user any creativity with their product beyond the use for which it was designed (I’m sure you could crack the code for any of these softwares, but I’m talking in a general sense here).
The creators of virii seem to have found a way to subvert the constraints of commercialized technology. I’m not a fan of nefarious virii that crash personal computers just because the user doesn’t know anything about their technology (aka Dark Angel, Thomas p. 268). I agree that the user of any technology would be better off understanding the inner workings of these devices and programs, but shouldn’t be viciously punished for ignorance. But the premises Dark Angel uses are significant: ignorance leaves users open to computer virii. Beyond that, ignorance keeps users from expanding on their literacies and abilities; if we don’t understand the technology, we cannot possibly begin to work outside that which constrains us.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
unfair use
A good editorial on a recent copyright debacle. LittleBigPlanet, a new game for the Playstation 3, is built around the concept of user-created content shared online. But what happens when that content references copyrighted works?
I like to view "writing" in this case as level creation. Because it is.
http://www.ps3informer.com/playstation-3/games/editorial-copyright-madness-hurts-gaming-009502.php
I like to view "writing" in this case as level creation. Because it is.
http://www.ps3informer.com/playstation-3/games/editorial-copyright-madness-hurts-gaming-009502.php
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Pennell
I apologize for missing class on Monday and for the lateness of my response to a reading, but I do believe I was stricken by some unseen food poisoning from hell. I chose the Itext piece because I was interested in the Pennell’s use of a fraternity to understand the uses of websites today and what it means to composition and people in general. He states, “We fail to investigate ITexts as they operate and develop on the peripheries of our classrooms, campuses, and workplaces. While we see students as composers in our classrooms, we have a tendency to avoid claiming extracurricular writing as composing.
Student organizations, especially those such as the Interfraternity Council (IFC), mediate
a complicated existence between various constituencies, such as students, fraternities, academic
administration, the public, and alumni”(75). Here Pennell explains that although we as teachers may see our students are composers in the classroom and understand the importance of technology in the classroom we have issues recognizing the amount of composing and literacy that continues and grows outside of the classroom. I find it amusing that perhaps one of the students that I constantly have to nag to email responses, write an essay, or create a PowerPoint will have no difficulty spending hours messaging and posting on Facebook or even creating their own website to promote whatever it is they feel like. Well, even though that student is not composing in my classroom they are obviously a busy bee outside of it—and that is important. This “student’s” extracurricular technology activity is helping to create a new type of worker/person in the workforce because of the new direction in work affairs after industrialism.
Pennell addresses the fact that it is difficult to explain post-industrialism and its effects on literacy and technology in a composition classroom. Thus, Pennell went to the IFC, a fraternity web site in the Midwest, to research some of the roles it play, conduct interviews, and observe. As Pennell stated, “I wanted to capture a variety of snapshots of the web site’s role within the IFC communication ecology.” He remarks that the website is a great example of Itext and although it is not necessarily cutting edge, “The composing of an organizational web site provides students with an engagement not only in composing with technology but also an engagement with larger social, political, and economic ecologies”(78). Again, creating a website adds skills and an awareness of society that perhaps the composition classroom could not address. I do not think it is our fault that we cant really address it (we cant do everything) but the realization that this kind of literacy is happening out there all the time was something that really struck me. Although I consider myself quadsi-technology literate, most of the younger people I meet can run circles around me in the technology field and I have a good idea that they did not learn these skills in classrooms. I think it would be better to realize that students are becoming literate in technology on their own and try to utilize that in the classroom. Of course, that means we have to count on the students to not lie about their skills and develop some sort of area for them to use their powers of technology…sorry, I digress…
Pennell says that he wants to investigate contextualized design, but outside of the classroom. Hence, his entire piece that revolved around a very popular extracurricular activity (Fraternities) and their website. He ends with, “ITexts such as this challenge our notions of revision as composers mediate both space and time, looking to future composers and diverse, as well as dispersed, audiences. With the post-industrial turn and its subsequent call, and need, for free-agents and flexible workers, the in-between and extracurricular places of student composing in our universities require our attention”(89). Basically, I think he is saying that we need to realize the world outside our composition classroom and realize that it is changing. Types of works are changing. Students are changing. So it is important that we change. I realize that he explains that he wanted to work and did work outside of the pedagogical perspective, but since I understand pedagogy to a point and I am hopelessly lost within the field of theory I thought it better for me to try to apply what he found and what he was saying to the classroom. I do not think I am wrong in believing that he wants us to address the fact that our students continue their literacy and growing outside of our classroom (or any other classroom for that matter) and at the very least we need to be aware.
Student organizations, especially those such as the Interfraternity Council (IFC), mediate
a complicated existence between various constituencies, such as students, fraternities, academic
administration, the public, and alumni”(75). Here Pennell explains that although we as teachers may see our students are composers in the classroom and understand the importance of technology in the classroom we have issues recognizing the amount of composing and literacy that continues and grows outside of the classroom. I find it amusing that perhaps one of the students that I constantly have to nag to email responses, write an essay, or create a PowerPoint will have no difficulty spending hours messaging and posting on Facebook or even creating their own website to promote whatever it is they feel like. Well, even though that student is not composing in my classroom they are obviously a busy bee outside of it—and that is important. This “student’s” extracurricular technology activity is helping to create a new type of worker/person in the workforce because of the new direction in work affairs after industrialism.
Pennell addresses the fact that it is difficult to explain post-industrialism and its effects on literacy and technology in a composition classroom. Thus, Pennell went to the IFC, a fraternity web site in the Midwest, to research some of the roles it play, conduct interviews, and observe. As Pennell stated, “I wanted to capture a variety of snapshots of the web site’s role within the IFC communication ecology.” He remarks that the website is a great example of Itext and although it is not necessarily cutting edge, “The composing of an organizational web site provides students with an engagement not only in composing with technology but also an engagement with larger social, political, and economic ecologies”(78). Again, creating a website adds skills and an awareness of society that perhaps the composition classroom could not address. I do not think it is our fault that we cant really address it (we cant do everything) but the realization that this kind of literacy is happening out there all the time was something that really struck me. Although I consider myself quadsi-technology literate, most of the younger people I meet can run circles around me in the technology field and I have a good idea that they did not learn these skills in classrooms. I think it would be better to realize that students are becoming literate in technology on their own and try to utilize that in the classroom. Of course, that means we have to count on the students to not lie about their skills and develop some sort of area for them to use their powers of technology…sorry, I digress…
Pennell says that he wants to investigate contextualized design, but outside of the classroom. Hence, his entire piece that revolved around a very popular extracurricular activity (Fraternities) and their website. He ends with, “ITexts such as this challenge our notions of revision as composers mediate both space and time, looking to future composers and diverse, as well as dispersed, audiences. With the post-industrial turn and its subsequent call, and need, for free-agents and flexible workers, the in-between and extracurricular places of student composing in our universities require our attention”(89). Basically, I think he is saying that we need to realize the world outside our composition classroom and realize that it is changing. Types of works are changing. Students are changing. So it is important that we change. I realize that he explains that he wanted to work and did work outside of the pedagogical perspective, but since I understand pedagogy to a point and I am hopelessly lost within the field of theory I thought it better for me to try to apply what he found and what he was saying to the classroom. I do not think I am wrong in believing that he wants us to address the fact that our students continue their literacy and growing outside of our classroom (or any other classroom for that matter) and at the very least we need to be aware.
Monday, November 10, 2008
I was very much intrigued by Honeycutt’s essay on orality and literacy; I have considered, in depth, the relationship between oral and silent reading—especially in relation to pedagogy as it has developed from antiquity. I was well aware that the primary mode of reading was indeed oral until at least the time of St. Augustine. Until the at least the fifth century A.D., reading was, in fact a communal activity. It did not belong in the realm of the private—largely because there was not much of a sense of privacy in any culture—those who had time/space for leisure and/or privacy were indeed, the aristocracy. Oral reading was a way of transmitting and reinforcing cultural norms, hence its prevalence in religious training.
But, vis a vis technology: it was in, fact, a technology that accounts for what Scribner calls “literacy as a state of grace.” During the reign of King James, catechisms and alphabetic primers converged into one book for the sake of a technological convenience—and for the sake, I believe of wedding politics and religion via the indoctrination afforded by oral recitation of transcribed doctrine—under the name of a sovereign state and monarch. This technological practice continued in the New England Primers, Webster’s Blue Back Speller, and The McGuffey and other early readers in the
U.S.
While I have read and written considerably on orality of reading, I had not considered the inverse operation of writing—likely because in educational settings, the writing always came after the reading—if it came at all. The reasons for this, if we consider literacy as ideological are of course very clear. When we are producing subjects, input is desired over output. Output, in fact, is discouraged except as imitation—hence the copybooks of early common school practices.
The emphasis on literacy (vis a vis reading) has unfortunately denigrated the affordances of orality. It is easy enough for us to understand in retrospect that if reading was once a communal public act, with its own affordances, that orality also has affordance that rely upon the collective, the communal, the public. So to overlook the use of the oral in terms of collaborative composition seems indeed counterintuitive. But again orality has been devalued because of its traditional use of vernacular—the very thing that impeded the public inscribing of documents as literacy spread beyond the Latinate erudite of Rome.
I’m not exactly sure what the author meant by “secondary orality,” but I think that as a result of this article, my thinking about Ong’s claim that “writing restructures consciousness” has changed. If what Ong meant was that during the act of writing itself, our consciousness in relation to the subject and process at hand is restructured, I do believe he is correct. Whether his claim is broader and therefore an example of technological determinism, I am not sure. But, I have often wondered about the recursiveness of the ancients writings—take Aristotle, for instance. It is often burdensome in its repetition. I always thought he was simply trying to drive home a point; I thought the restating was pedagogical. Now I wonder if it was simply the technology of having it written for him as he dictated—I’m not sure of his method of transcription.
But, vis a vis technology: it was in, fact, a technology that accounts for what Scribner calls “literacy as a state of grace.” During the reign of King James, catechisms and alphabetic primers converged into one book for the sake of a technological convenience—and for the sake, I believe of wedding politics and religion via the indoctrination afforded by oral recitation of transcribed doctrine—under the name of a sovereign state and monarch. This technological practice continued in the New England Primers, Webster’s Blue Back Speller, and The McGuffey and other early readers in the
U.S.
While I have read and written considerably on orality of reading, I had not considered the inverse operation of writing—likely because in educational settings, the writing always came after the reading—if it came at all. The reasons for this, if we consider literacy as ideological are of course very clear. When we are producing subjects, input is desired over output. Output, in fact, is discouraged except as imitation—hence the copybooks of early common school practices.
The emphasis on literacy (vis a vis reading) has unfortunately denigrated the affordances of orality. It is easy enough for us to understand in retrospect that if reading was once a communal public act, with its own affordances, that orality also has affordance that rely upon the collective, the communal, the public. So to overlook the use of the oral in terms of collaborative composition seems indeed counterintuitive. But again orality has been devalued because of its traditional use of vernacular—the very thing that impeded the public inscribing of documents as literacy spread beyond the Latinate erudite of Rome.
I’m not exactly sure what the author meant by “secondary orality,” but I think that as a result of this article, my thinking about Ong’s claim that “writing restructures consciousness” has changed. If what Ong meant was that during the act of writing itself, our consciousness in relation to the subject and process at hand is restructured, I do believe he is correct. Whether his claim is broader and therefore an example of technological determinism, I am not sure. But, I have often wondered about the recursiveness of the ancients writings—take Aristotle, for instance. It is often burdensome in its repetition. I always thought he was simply trying to drive home a point; I thought the restating was pedagogical. Now I wonder if it was simply the technology of having it written for him as he dictated—I’m not sure of his method of transcription.
Genre and Identity
Both of the genre studies articles (Graham and Pennell) gave me a lot to think about. I definitely want to read some of the articles they cite, such as Miller, Bazerman, and Giddens. Genres certainly do have rhetorical power. Take for instance any form you have to fill out that identifies your gender. It produces social knowledge about how many genders there are and what categories they are. Also, the question are you married, single, divorced, widowed, etc. does much to produce and reify a heteronormative social knowledge of intimacy because it elides relationships that homosexuals form, such as life partners, because they have no legal consequences. The Houle et al. piece gives some insight into the implications that genres-as-knowledge production can influence identity. Bazerman locates a sense of agency in genres in that individuals can use them for their own purposes.
This seems to be Alex’s purpose in his project—to re-imagine his identity through multiple genres. Although as an audience I did feel a little put off with the “You decide,” it did locate me just where I am—in a position of power relative to trans-folk who despite being tagged onto the alphabet soup of the LGBT movement (the full version is LGBT2-SIQQ—lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, two-spirited, intersex, queer, and questioning) have historically been erased from it. Also, at times I felt like I was listening to a rebellious, petulant teenager who just needed to grow up (See Judith Halberstam’s In a Queer Time and Place for a full discussion of maturity and queers, esp. trans). LOL I laugh at myself because I can recognize the privilege that under-rides those reactions. At the same time, different rhetorical appeals may be more persuasive to a privileged audience than the ones he uses.
The genre of myth and the genre of sound really drove Alex’s purpose home to me. By reworking the Robin Hood myth, or showing it as multiple (“That’s why it’s such a complex and beautiful legend because it changes with every single person who reads it.”), Alex produces himself as multiple, able to be re-read. The “You decide” takes on a different meaning here—one that I certainly can identify with. Whenever I “come out” to someone, there is a re-viewing process that happens. Sometimes the person verbalizes it—“Oh yeah, now it makes sense. You get real quiet when we talk about sports.” (because, you know, talking about sports is a sign of heterosexual males despite the fact that there are many straight guys who don’t watch sports and many gay men who do—gay men even have sports bars! Gasp! I was actually shocked the first time I heard that.). Or they non-verbally re-view me by paying attention to certain behaviors or looking me up and down. I certainly don’t think of myself as an outlaw (I am an upstanding citizen, thank you very much), as Alex has described himself, but in many ways according to the “laws” of society I am just by being myself. So, the re-reading that Alex describes about himself through the Robin Hood myth helps us to understand about how he views his gender as continuously and simultaneously both male and female: “Was I Alex then--Alex when I was a girl called Bethany? Does that mean that Bethany is gone/dead now? No. I am Bethany now, just as I was Alex then, too.” Some transgendered individuals assert that they have no gender, or are a gender not defined by male and female categories. For Alex, gender, instead of being on a continuum (the more masculine you are the less feminine you are), seems to exist as two separate poles (allowing for the possibility to be high in male and high in female characteristics). Does this, then, resolve into androgyny?
In addition to myth, the genre of audio technology seemed useful to Alex’s project of producing knowledge about his identity through multiple genres. As a person prepares for and undergoes sex-reassignment surgery, she or he takes hormones, which affect, among other things, the depth of the voice. Since Alex selected different clips from different points in this process, the listener is able to hear the change in his voice. This embodied rhetorical move could not happen in simply print text with the same degree of efficacy.
Although I am skeptical about how liberatory this project may be (Who will access this??), the myth and the audio genres do the work of producing social knowledge particularly about the multiplicity of identity for Alex.
This seems to be Alex’s purpose in his project—to re-imagine his identity through multiple genres. Although as an audience I did feel a little put off with the “You decide,” it did locate me just where I am—in a position of power relative to trans-folk who despite being tagged onto the alphabet soup of the LGBT movement (the full version is LGBT2-SIQQ—lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, two-spirited, intersex, queer, and questioning) have historically been erased from it. Also, at times I felt like I was listening to a rebellious, petulant teenager who just needed to grow up (See Judith Halberstam’s In a Queer Time and Place for a full discussion of maturity and queers, esp. trans). LOL I laugh at myself because I can recognize the privilege that under-rides those reactions. At the same time, different rhetorical appeals may be more persuasive to a privileged audience than the ones he uses.
The genre of myth and the genre of sound really drove Alex’s purpose home to me. By reworking the Robin Hood myth, or showing it as multiple (“That’s why it’s such a complex and beautiful legend because it changes with every single person who reads it.”), Alex produces himself as multiple, able to be re-read. The “You decide” takes on a different meaning here—one that I certainly can identify with. Whenever I “come out” to someone, there is a re-viewing process that happens. Sometimes the person verbalizes it—“Oh yeah, now it makes sense. You get real quiet when we talk about sports.” (because, you know, talking about sports is a sign of heterosexual males despite the fact that there are many straight guys who don’t watch sports and many gay men who do—gay men even have sports bars! Gasp! I was actually shocked the first time I heard that.). Or they non-verbally re-view me by paying attention to certain behaviors or looking me up and down. I certainly don’t think of myself as an outlaw (I am an upstanding citizen, thank you very much), as Alex has described himself, but in many ways according to the “laws” of society I am just by being myself. So, the re-reading that Alex describes about himself through the Robin Hood myth helps us to understand about how he views his gender as continuously and simultaneously both male and female: “Was I Alex then--Alex when I was a girl called Bethany? Does that mean that Bethany is gone/dead now? No. I am Bethany now, just as I was Alex then, too.” Some transgendered individuals assert that they have no gender, or are a gender not defined by male and female categories. For Alex, gender, instead of being on a continuum (the more masculine you are the less feminine you are), seems to exist as two separate poles (allowing for the possibility to be high in male and high in female characteristics). Does this, then, resolve into androgyny?
In addition to myth, the genre of audio technology seemed useful to Alex’s project of producing knowledge about his identity through multiple genres. As a person prepares for and undergoes sex-reassignment surgery, she or he takes hormones, which affect, among other things, the depth of the voice. Since Alex selected different clips from different points in this process, the listener is able to hear the change in his voice. This embodied rhetorical move could not happen in simply print text with the same degree of efficacy.
Although I am skeptical about how liberatory this project may be (Who will access this??), the myth and the audio genres do the work of producing social knowledge particularly about the multiplicity of identity for Alex.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Politics loves the Internet
“Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not be president. Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not have been the nominee,” said Arianna Huffington, editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post.
“When Congress refuses to go with his [Obama's] agenda, it’s not going to be just the president” they oppose, Mr. Trippi [ran the Howard Dean campaign] said. It will be the president and his huge virtual network of citizens.
“Just like Kennedy brought in the television presidency, I think we’re about to see the first wired, connected, networked presidency,” Mr. Trippi said.
What do you think about Obama's use of the Internet as a part of his campaign? His post-campaign strategy?
Besides the fact that the web design of both sites is, dare I say it, beautiful, the networking and public quality of both sites helped create a movement.
“Just like Kennedy brought in the television presidency, I think we’re about to see the first wired, connected, networked presidency,” Mr. Trippi said.
***Check out Print magazine's analysis of various designs used in presidential campaigns over the years. You can download a PDF.
Materiality and genre
Disclaimer: Genre theory confuses me. I find it interesting and important, but nevertheless, I am confused. The following is a somewhat coherent rambling of ideas related to Monday's readings...
The Christian Science Monitor will be moving from a daily print edition to a daily online edition in 2009. CSM editor John Yemma says,
“This is a period of extreme financial difficulty for all news organizations. New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., for instance, was asked at a conference in California on Oct. 22 whether the Times would be a print product in 10 years. "The heart of the answer must be (that) we can't care," Sulzberger said. He added that he expects print to be around for a long time but "we must be where people want us for our information."
(see full article here)
(see full article here)
I’m particularly interested in the connection between materiality and genre. The Christian Science Monitor is a newspaper that is held to a (generally) high standard, and I wonder how the reader/industry perception might change because of the print to online switch being made. Pennell is “drawn to and influenced by Anthony Pares and Graham Smart’s (1994) definition of genre as ‘a broad rhetorical strategy enacted within a community in order to regularize writer/reader transactions in ways that allow for the creation of particular knowledge’” (p. 78). At this moment, I’m not comfortable enough in my knowledge of genre (and the barrage of readings on genre from various classes this past week has confused me more...), so I’ll stick with Pares and Smart’s definition for now.
Because it’s that time in the semester when I really want to simplify things...
Anyway...how does the news genre (or any subgenre? of news) fit with the CSM’s switch from print to online publication? Does a change in materiality constitute a change in genre, or, as I’m guessing, is it more complicated than that?
Since Pennell also cites Carolyn Miller’s work on genre, I’ll take a look at that text for a moment. In the onset of her text, Miller explains that “one concern in rhetorical theory, then, is to make of rhetorical genre a stable classifying concept; another is to ensure that the concept is rhetorically sound” (p. 151). Rather than looking at “substance or form” (materiality?), Miller focuses on genre as a representation of “rhetorical action” (p. 151). Pennell argues that “ITexts, especially Internet genres, rely on [an] unfinished state of always being under construction” (p. 81). So, does this “dynamic nature” (as Pennell puts it) place the materiality of an online web site beyond the surface definitions of materiality (p. 81)? For example, an online newspaper (i.e. CSM) could be seen as a digital extension of the print edition. On the other hand, since the print edition is no longer the dominant publication of this news organization, could we consider the online CSM to be an extension of the organization? How does this complicate one’s idea of the genres involved?
Miller gives the following as one of four implications for understanding genre: “As meaningful action, genre is interpretable by means of rules; genre rules occur at a relatively high level on a hierarchy of rules for symbolic interaction” (p. 163). I’m having difficulty envisioning genre rules that apply to an IText. Other than an application of rhetorical rules, I think this is another area that begs for a new/revised theory. Graham and Whalen discuss a problem noted by Kress: “Much of genre theory has been developed for alphabetic practice” (p. 68). Hence Kress’ adoption of theory from the Australian genre school (Graham and Whalen, p. 68). Point being: the application of theory based in alphabetic texts creates problems for mixed-media texts.
To revert back to the first quote by Pennell: perhaps we should look at materiality and its position (?) as the “(infra)structures within which actors work” (Pennell, p. 83). With this in mind, I can see the online version (online materiality) of the CSM as the “(infra)structure” in which all actors involved interact. In this view, I think Miller’s understanding of genre as a social and/or rhetorical action fits well.
Because it’s that time in the semester when I really want to simplify things...
Anyway...how does the news genre (or any subgenre? of news) fit with the CSM’s switch from print to online publication? Does a change in materiality constitute a change in genre, or, as I’m guessing, is it more complicated than that?
Since Pennell also cites Carolyn Miller’s work on genre, I’ll take a look at that text for a moment. In the onset of her text, Miller explains that “one concern in rhetorical theory, then, is to make of rhetorical genre a stable classifying concept; another is to ensure that the concept is rhetorically sound” (p. 151). Rather than looking at “substance or form” (materiality?), Miller focuses on genre as a representation of “rhetorical action” (p. 151). Pennell argues that “ITexts, especially Internet genres, rely on [an] unfinished state of always being under construction” (p. 81). So, does this “dynamic nature” (as Pennell puts it) place the materiality of an online web site beyond the surface definitions of materiality (p. 81)? For example, an online newspaper (i.e. CSM) could be seen as a digital extension of the print edition. On the other hand, since the print edition is no longer the dominant publication of this news organization, could we consider the online CSM to be an extension of the organization? How does this complicate one’s idea of the genres involved?
Miller gives the following as one of four implications for understanding genre: “As meaningful action, genre is interpretable by means of rules; genre rules occur at a relatively high level on a hierarchy of rules for symbolic interaction” (p. 163). I’m having difficulty envisioning genre rules that apply to an IText. Other than an application of rhetorical rules, I think this is another area that begs for a new/revised theory. Graham and Whalen discuss a problem noted by Kress: “Much of genre theory has been developed for alphabetic practice” (p. 68). Hence Kress’ adoption of theory from the Australian genre school (Graham and Whalen, p. 68). Point being: the application of theory based in alphabetic texts creates problems for mixed-media texts.
To revert back to the first quote by Pennell: perhaps we should look at materiality and its position (?) as the “(infra)structures within which actors work” (Pennell, p. 83). With this in mind, I can see the online version (online materiality) of the CSM as the “(infra)structure” in which all actors involved interact. In this view, I think Miller’s understanding of genre as a social and/or rhetorical action fits well.
The photo at the top of this post is amusing: It pictures a rolled-up newspaper yet the CSM (in 2009) will be primarily an online publication.
Graham and Whalen: A smattering of stuff I want to know
1. Reciprocity
I'm always interested to see how issues of reciprocity play out in research. Ellen Cushman has suggested, “The terms governing the give-and-take (reciprocity) of involvement in the community need to be openly and consciously negotiated by everyone participating in activist research.” Pam’s “Ethics of Reciprocity” article also came to mind. While Graham does not label his work as ‘activist’ research, he does make explicit that he considers co-authoring/reciprocal research with his participant, Whalen, the “ideal” and most ethical approach to qualitative investigation, following from Williams (1996).
While I agree that ethical reciprocity does seem a distinct improvement over the disciplining gaze approach long used in research, “ideal” still seems too committal to me. What does Whalen get out of this study? I’m curious. While they do give us a couple of hints as to what each author contributed, i.e. Whalen doesn’t use rhetorical terms in the part he’s written, I’d be curious to know if Whalen found talking about his design process enlightening at all. How did theorize his work previously (if he did theorize it)? Did he gain more knowledge about his own process, or new ways of speaking about it? I think all I am really asking for here is a footnote obviously from him – something that gives him a moment to overtly assume ownership of the article. I know he’s the second author and Graham is the academic, but if it’s going to be truly reciprocal, this might be a way of helping make that move even clearer.
2. Methods
I liked the description of the data collection; it was coherent and seemed well-justified overall. The terms 'post-mortem' and 'situational' also provided some food for thought. It was a smooth rhetorical move on Graham & Whalen's part, I think, to identify this dichotomy and then promptly note that their identification created a gap between the two poles, which they then proceeded to fill.
I did find one aspect of their methods troubling. They clearly detailed data collection, but then what happened? There was a direct jump to the writing process. I wanted to see more information about what they did with that data they collected. Did they code it? If so, how? I acknowledge this problem might be due to my unfamiliarity with the genre theory literature; perhaps there is a sort of tacit understanding of how that approach goes from data to write-up.
3. Rhetorical Canon Shift
This is not new news, but in terms of actual practice, this reading and the piece by Houle, Kimball, and McKee further emphasized the ways that the rhetorical emphases are changing. Arrangement and delivery matter again. I'm not sure yet if memory has made a comeback, but it's interesting to see how arrangement and delivery have ascended to new levels of importance within digital modes and digital processes. A lot of the design issues Whalen dealt with stemmed from issues of arrangement. Graham and Whalen emphasized the shifting nature of the audience (which I would locate within Invention) but arrangement has become a priority for the audience, so it needs to be considered within invention.
I'm always interested to see how issues of reciprocity play out in research. Ellen Cushman has suggested, “The terms governing the give-and-take (reciprocity) of involvement in the community need to be openly and consciously negotiated by everyone participating in activist research.” Pam’s “Ethics of Reciprocity” article also came to mind. While Graham does not label his work as ‘activist’ research, he does make explicit that he considers co-authoring/reciprocal research with his participant, Whalen, the “ideal” and most ethical approach to qualitative investigation, following from Williams (1996).
While I agree that ethical reciprocity does seem a distinct improvement over the disciplining gaze approach long used in research, “ideal” still seems too committal to me. What does Whalen get out of this study? I’m curious. While they do give us a couple of hints as to what each author contributed, i.e. Whalen doesn’t use rhetorical terms in the part he’s written, I’d be curious to know if Whalen found talking about his design process enlightening at all. How did theorize his work previously (if he did theorize it)? Did he gain more knowledge about his own process, or new ways of speaking about it? I think all I am really asking for here is a footnote obviously from him – something that gives him a moment to overtly assume ownership of the article. I know he’s the second author and Graham is the academic, but if it’s going to be truly reciprocal, this might be a way of helping make that move even clearer.
2. Methods
I liked the description of the data collection; it was coherent and seemed well-justified overall. The terms 'post-mortem' and 'situational' also provided some food for thought. It was a smooth rhetorical move on Graham & Whalen's part, I think, to identify this dichotomy and then promptly note that their identification created a gap between the two poles, which they then proceeded to fill.
I did find one aspect of their methods troubling. They clearly detailed data collection, but then what happened? There was a direct jump to the writing process. I wanted to see more information about what they did with that data they collected. Did they code it? If so, how? I acknowledge this problem might be due to my unfamiliarity with the genre theory literature; perhaps there is a sort of tacit understanding of how that approach goes from data to write-up.
3. Rhetorical Canon Shift
This is not new news, but in terms of actual practice, this reading and the piece by Houle, Kimball, and McKee further emphasized the ways that the rhetorical emphases are changing. Arrangement and delivery matter again. I'm not sure yet if memory has made a comeback, but it's interesting to see how arrangement and delivery have ascended to new levels of importance within digital modes and digital processes. A lot of the design issues Whalen dealt with stemmed from issues of arrangement. Graham and Whalen emphasized the shifting nature of the audience (which I would locate within Invention) but arrangement has become a priority for the audience, so it needs to be considered within invention.
anecdotes and sunken boats
No offense to Michael Pennell, but his article about fraternity web sites seemed to contain a lot of obvious observations (at least to a seasoned web nerd), albeit couched in the terminology of rhetoric and composition. Maybe I would have gotten a little more out of his article had I read the work of Anthony Giddens, but for the moment the little extra research time I have is reserved for upcoming papers. But if I missed anything groundbreaking in Pennell’s article—or if I’m writing it off a little too quickly—someone, please intervene.
Then again, I could also be blinded by the fact that I worked on a rickety university website for an entire semester and had all of my work accidentally overwritten by the person who took my place when I graduated; but I don’t think I could possibly be that petty.
As for the Graham and Whalen article, I think I was given a better perspective on things by having a friend who’s spent the last three years dealing with these issues. He went to graduate school at Carnegie Mellon’s ETC (Electronic Technology Center), where he had a project each semester that was for a corporate sponsor. I don’t imagine that he’s even heard of new media theory (though it’s a possibility), but each one of these projects had to involve some form of what Graham and Whalen refer to as the Mode, Medium, Genre Interaction Heuristic (Fig. 6 on page 88). I followed most of his projects pretty closely, because I would go visit him and his brother every couple of weeks in Pittsburgh; and he had similar problems as the designer in this article.
One of his biggest projects came in his second semester when his team was contracted to create an exhibit for the USS Requin submarine currently docked at the Carnegie Science Center (it’s a WWII sub). They interviewed some surviving veterans on video, but had to decide how to present this information as visitors walked through the submarine. They finally decided on a series of kiosks placed throughout the sub which would give information about the specific area around the kiosk and give you the option to watch the replies of veterans who were interviewed for the project. They did run into a few problems with the content, though; the museum wouldn’t let them use interview footage where the men told gory/raunchy stories about their time in the service. But all in all, he was happy with how the project turned out—and I believe it’s still set up in the Requin today.
Actually, I did a little digging, and discovered that the tour is available via the web. The only problem with it is that it doesn’t scale to the size of your browser. I’ll have to yell at him for that.
Fun fact: he now works for a video game developer that works almost exclusively with licensed products. You wouldn’t believe how often Nickelodeon thinks that clouds/rock formations/random background objects look like penises.
writing by dictation--inarticualte ramblings
About ten years ago, my father, who never learned how to type, bought Dragon NaturallySpeaking software. I think it was version 2.0, but I'm not sure. My dad was hoping that the software would allow him to write faster and eliminate the frustration of having to hunt and peck at keys on the keyboard. As a high school student with many papers to write, I was also really excited about the opportunity to write by dictation. It sounded very easy and I was hoping that I could compose papers with my voice alone.
So, I plunged in--downloaded the software, "trained" the software to recognize my voice, and began writing/speaking. It was a nightmare. Each sentence I uttered was riddled with errors. I had to go back by hand--like a caveman!--and correct just about every word in the sentence before dictating the next one. I realized quickly that the software wasn't delivering accurate results. But I also realized that writing, for me, is not something that you just spit out in a fit of passion. For some reason, the advertising for the software had led me to believe that writing on screen was just like speaking aloud, but slower. I thought that writing was just something that poured out of you, and that doing it by dictation would make the pouring that much more efficient. But, this experience forced me to see that writing--for me anyway--is always slow and recursive. Now, writing recursively by voice--going back and forth--was nearly impossible. Plus, all of the extra errors made it that much more harder. If writing was slow before, now it was glacially slow.
The Dragon folks suggested that if errors were a major problem it was because the machine had not yet learned your voice and recommended that users take the training courses again. So I did. Basically this amounted to reading aloud several scripts on the screen. Then, I returned to writing by dictation and still found that I could not compose a comprehensible sentence. I gave up. My father, too, ran into similar difficulties and became very frustrated. He had paid quite a bit of money for the software and now it was going to sit on a shelf--never to be used again.
Now, it appears that Dragon is releasing version 10.0 of its NaturallySpeaking series. It claims to have 99% accuracy. I'm tempted to give it another shot, but I can't help being fearful. Based on my earlier experience, I've adopted a kind of "I'll believe it when I see it" approach. Besides, I learned the hard way what the advertisers will not tell you: to use this kind of software, you almost have to unlearn how to write by hand and relearn how to speak. It the (re/un)learning didn't pay off ten years ago, but maybe the technology is improved enough that it will pay off now.
In any case, if the 99% accuracy claim is true, then perhaps this is the beginning of a revolution in how we write. Honeycutt claims that "if word recognition accuracy increases to the point at which users can consistently produce clean drafts faster than thy can with keyborading, then voice recognition has a chance of becoming a widely adopted literacy tool in the corporate workplace" (315). I wonder if the technology might also become widely adopted by students, or are the differences between school-writing and workplace-writing too great? I also wonder if people will choose to buy the technology--even if it is better. Honeycutt seems to suggest that improvements in the technology will make it more popular. But many scholars have reminded us that whether a technology is seen as working or not working depends on the user, not the technology itself. It's possible that improvements in word recognition accuracy might not matter to people who like writing the old-fashioned way or who don't trust machines. There are a lot of such people. Still I wonder what the future holds: Will advertising reach and convince people that this is the next wave of writing? Will schools and/or businesses purchase the software and make writing by dictation part of the curriculum? Will writing by dictation supplant writing by hand?
It will be interesting to see what happens. Personally, think I might give the technology another shot--but not just yet.
So, I plunged in--downloaded the software, "trained" the software to recognize my voice, and began writing/speaking. It was a nightmare. Each sentence I uttered was riddled with errors. I had to go back by hand--like a caveman!--and correct just about every word in the sentence before dictating the next one. I realized quickly that the software wasn't delivering accurate results. But I also realized that writing, for me, is not something that you just spit out in a fit of passion. For some reason, the advertising for the software had led me to believe that writing on screen was just like speaking aloud, but slower. I thought that writing was just something that poured out of you, and that doing it by dictation would make the pouring that much more efficient. But, this experience forced me to see that writing--for me anyway--is always slow and recursive. Now, writing recursively by voice--going back and forth--was nearly impossible. Plus, all of the extra errors made it that much more harder. If writing was slow before, now it was glacially slow.
The Dragon folks suggested that if errors were a major problem it was because the machine had not yet learned your voice and recommended that users take the training courses again. So I did. Basically this amounted to reading aloud several scripts on the screen. Then, I returned to writing by dictation and still found that I could not compose a comprehensible sentence. I gave up. My father, too, ran into similar difficulties and became very frustrated. He had paid quite a bit of money for the software and now it was going to sit on a shelf--never to be used again.
Now, it appears that Dragon is releasing version 10.0 of its NaturallySpeaking series. It claims to have 99% accuracy. I'm tempted to give it another shot, but I can't help being fearful. Based on my earlier experience, I've adopted a kind of "I'll believe it when I see it" approach. Besides, I learned the hard way what the advertisers will not tell you: to use this kind of software, you almost have to unlearn how to write by hand and relearn how to speak. It the (re/un)learning didn't pay off ten years ago, but maybe the technology is improved enough that it will pay off now.
In any case, if the 99% accuracy claim is true, then perhaps this is the beginning of a revolution in how we write. Honeycutt claims that "if word recognition accuracy increases to the point at which users can consistently produce clean drafts faster than thy can with keyborading, then voice recognition has a chance of becoming a widely adopted literacy tool in the corporate workplace" (315). I wonder if the technology might also become widely adopted by students, or are the differences between school-writing and workplace-writing too great? I also wonder if people will choose to buy the technology--even if it is better. Honeycutt seems to suggest that improvements in the technology will make it more popular. But many scholars have reminded us that whether a technology is seen as working or not working depends on the user, not the technology itself. It's possible that improvements in word recognition accuracy might not matter to people who like writing the old-fashioned way or who don't trust machines. There are a lot of such people. Still I wonder what the future holds: Will advertising reach and convince people that this is the next wave of writing? Will schools and/or businesses purchase the software and make writing by dictation part of the curriculum? Will writing by dictation supplant writing by hand?
It will be interesting to see what happens. Personally, think I might give the technology another shot--but not just yet.
The following is from the website for Dragon NaturallySpeaking. (I've also included a link to a review below):
"Turn Talk into Type
Most people speak over 120 words per minute but type less than 40 words per minute. What if you could create email, documents and spreadsheets simply by speaking? What if you could control your PC just by talking to it, starting programs, using menus, surfing the web?
This isn’t Star Trek or HAL from the Space Odyssey saga; it’s Dragon NaturallySpeaking, the world’s best-selling speech recognition software. This revolutionary and easy-to-use product gives you everything you need to be more efficient with your PC. Turn your voice into text three times faster than most people type with up to 99% accuracy. It’s so easy, you can use it right out of the box. It learns to recognize your voice instantly and continually improves the more you use it.
Dragon NaturallySpeaking works with the most commonly used desktop applications, including Microsoft Word, Internet Explorer, AOL and more! Just about anything you do now by typing can be done faster using your voice. Create and edit documents or emails. Open and close applications. Control your mouse and entire desktop.
The biggest reason more people worldwide rely on Dragon NaturallySpeaking: it works. With more than 175 awards for accuracy and ease of use, it’s the undisputed leader in speech recognition software. If you want to get more done, more quickly, just say the word and Dragon NaturallySpeaking will transform your productivity. "
http://www.channelinsider.com/c/a/Reviews/Talking-to-yourself-productively-with-Dragon-Naturally-Speaking/
"Turn Talk into Type
Most people speak over 120 words per minute but type less than 40 words per minute. What if you could create email, documents and spreadsheets simply by speaking? What if you could control your PC just by talking to it, starting programs, using menus, surfing the web?
This isn’t Star Trek or HAL from the Space Odyssey saga; it’s Dragon NaturallySpeaking, the world’s best-selling speech recognition software. This revolutionary and easy-to-use product gives you everything you need to be more efficient with your PC. Turn your voice into text three times faster than most people type with up to 99% accuracy. It’s so easy, you can use it right out of the box. It learns to recognize your voice instantly and continually improves the more you use it.
Dragon NaturallySpeaking works with the most commonly used desktop applications, including Microsoft Word, Internet Explorer, AOL and more! Just about anything you do now by typing can be done faster using your voice. Create and edit documents or emails. Open and close applications. Control your mouse and entire desktop.
The biggest reason more people worldwide rely on Dragon NaturallySpeaking: it works. With more than 175 awards for accuracy and ease of use, it’s the undisputed leader in speech recognition software. If you want to get more done, more quickly, just say the word and Dragon NaturallySpeaking will transform your productivity. "
http://www.channelinsider.com/c/a/Reviews/Talking-to-yourself-productively-with-Dragon-Naturally-Speaking/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)